# Virendra Singh and others v. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ballia and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 769
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.3011 of 2003
- **Bench:** K.N. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-singh-and-others-v-addl-sessions-judge-ballia-and-others-40196
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code 1808 Sec-482
Application against the revisional orderonce Revision of a party dismissed by
Session Judge under sec. 397 (3)-
application can not entertained under
sec. 482 Cr.P.C.-unless great miscarriage
of justice or abuse of process is there.

Held- Para 8 and 10

Thus, the conclusion which can be
drawn,
by
going
through
above
authorities is that once the revision of a
party has been dismissed, if the revision
by him is barred under Section 397 (3)
Cr.P.C. he can not take recourse to the
inherent powers of this Court but in rare
cases where there is great miscarriage of
justice or abuse of the process of the
court,
the
inherent
power
can
be
invoked.

The revisional court considered the
matter in the right perspective. The
impugned order does not show any
abuse of the process of the Court hence
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not
be invoked.
Case law discussed:
1989 JIC 540
(2002) 9 SCC 630
2002 (44) A.C.C. 1102 S.C.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Virendra Singh and others V. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ballia and others
769
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.3011 of 2003

Virendra Singh and others
...Applicants
Versus
Addl. Sessions Judge, Ballia and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri S.P. Uppaddya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal Procedure Code 1808 Sec-482
Application against the revisional orderonce Revision of a party dismissed by
Session Judge under sec. 397 (3)-
application can not entertained under
sec. 482 Cr.P.C.-unless great miscarriage
of justice or abuse of process is there.

Held- Para 8 and 10

Thus, the conclusion which can be
drawn,
by
going
through
above
authorities is that once the revision of a
party has been dismissed, if the revision
by him is barred under Section 397 (3)
Cr.P.C. he can not take recourse to the
inherent powers of this Court but in rare
cases where there is great miscarriage of
justice or abuse of the process of the
court,
the
inherent
power
can
be
invoked.

The revisional court considered the
matter in the right perspective. The
impugned order does not show any
abuse of the process of the Court hence
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not
be invoked.
Case law discussed:
1989 JIC 540
(2002) 9 SCC 630
2002 (44) A.C.C. 1102 S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.)

1. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against
the order dated 28.2.2003 (Annexure 7 to
the application) passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3,
Ballia, in Revision No.378 of 2002
Virendra Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this
application are that opposite party no. 3
filed a complaint in the court of
respondent no. 2. The statements of
complainant and witnesses were recorded.
The Magistrate took the cognizance and
summoned the applicants as accused by
order dated 20.8.2001. The applicants
filed
objection
against
the
said
summoning order, which was rejected by
order dated 15.4.2002. The applicants
then filed a revision against the said order
which
was
registered
as
Criminal
Revision No. 378 of 2003 and the said
revision was also dismissed on 28.2.2003.
Now the applicants have come up against
the said orders.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the applicants and the learned A.G.A.

4. Learned AGA raised a preliminary
point that once the revision has been
dismissed by the Sessions Judge the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can
not be entertained. Learned counsel for
the applicants objected to it and submitted
that there are a number of authorities
which lay down that even in such
circumstances
the
application
under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. In
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
1989 JIC 540, HK Rawal Chairman,
Mussoorie National School, Srinagar
Estate Mussoorie District Dehradun and
others Vs. Nidhi Prakash and another
which is a full Bench decision of this
Court. This matter came up for
consideration. The Full Bench of this held
that:
"Similarly, the order of the Sessions
Judge in revision in cases under Section
125, 133/138 and 145 Cr.P.C. against an
order of discharge by the Magistrate can
not be interfered with by the High Court
either in exercise of its revisional powers
at the instance of the same party or suo
motu or in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
these are also some of the orders of the
Sessions Judge which determine the
dispute between the parties. The order of
the Sessions Judge in revision against a
summoning order or an order framing
charge are however different as it does
not determine the dispute between the
parties if it resulted in the abuse of the
process
of
the
court/or
call
for
interference to secure the ends of justice it
can be interfered with by the High Court
in the exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as this is not
bared under Section 397 (3) and Section
399 (3) Cr.P.C.

5. In Kirshnan and another Vs.
Krishnaveni and another 1997 (4) SCC
241, it has been held as follows:

"10. Ordinarily, when revision has
been barred by Section 397 (3) of the
Code, a person- accused/ complainant -
cannot be allowed to take recourse to the
revision to the High Court under section
397 (1) or under inherent powers of the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code
since it may amount to circumvention of
the provisions of section 397 (3) or
Section 397 (2) of the Code. It is seen that
the High Court has suo motu power under
section 401 and continuous supervisory
jurisdiction under Section 483 of the
Code. So, when the High Court on
examination of the record finds that there
is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of
the process of the courts or the required
statutory procedure has not been complied
with or there is failure of justice or order
passed or sentence imposed by the
Magistrate requires correction, it is but
the duty of the High Court to have it
corrected at the inception lest grave
miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is,
therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to
prevent abuse of the process that the High
Court is preserved with inherent power
and would be justified, under such
circumstances, to exercise the inherent
power and in an appropriate case even
revisional power under section 397 (1)
read with Section 401 of the Code. As
stated earlier, it may be exercised
sparingly so as to avoid needless
multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary
delay
in
trial
and
protraction
of
proceedings. The object of criminal trial
is to render public justice, to punish the
criminal and to see that trial is concluded
expeditiously before the memory of the
witness fades out. The recent trend is to
delay the trial and threaten the witness or
to win over the witness by promise or
inducement. These malpractices need to
be curbed and public justice can be
ensured only when trial is conducted
expeditiously."

6. This authority has been followed
in Prasanta Kumar Dey Vs. State of West
Bengal and another (2002) 9 SCC 630
and Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar
Patel (2002) 44 ACC 1102 SC and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Baij Nath Prajapati V. State of U.P. and others
771
Rajendra Prasad Vs. Bashir and another
2002, Cr.L. J. 90.

7. In Laxmi Bai Patel's case (supra)
it has been held that:

"The position is well settled that in
such a case power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the; High
Court in rare cases and in exceptional
circumstances where the court finds that
permitting the impugned order to remain
undisturbed will amount to abuse of
process of the court and will result in
failure of justice."

8. Thus, the conclusion which can
be drawn, by going through above
authorities is that once the revision of a
party has been dismissed, if the revision
by him is barred under Section 397 (3)
Cr.P.C. he can not take recourse to the
inherent powers of this Court but in rare
cases where there is great miscarriage of
justice or abuse of the process of the
court, the inherent power can be invoked.

9. As per the facts of this case the
brother of the applicants had lodged FIR
against opposite party no. 3 and others
and as counter blast the present complaint
has come up. I have perused the order of
the revisional court which show that the
Magistrate
summoned
the
accused
considering the statement of complainant
examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
202
Cr.P.C.
The
Magistrate
also
considered the injury report. There is
nothing on record to even suggest that the
summoning order has in any way resulted
in the miscarriage of justice. The order is
based on consideration of the prima facie
evidence as required under Section 204
Cr.P.C.

10. The revisional court considered
the matter in the right perspective. The
impugned order does not show any abuse
of the process of the Court hence power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not be
invoked.

11. The application is therefore
devoid of any force and is hereby
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 3758 of 2003

Baij Nath Prajapati

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri S.K. Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal procedure Code 1808-Section
482-vehicle seized by ARTO- Application
for release rejected-Held- No seized
vehicle can keep for a long periodDirection to Transport authorities to pass
appropriate order and release vehicle.

Held- Para 5

In view of the aforesaid decision, facts
and law, it would be expedient in the
interest of justice that the A.R.T.O.,
Jaunpur is directed to consider and pass
appropriate order on the application of
the applicant for releasing the vehicleMaxi Cab Jeep No. WE:20-B:0332 after
deposit of adequate security except cash
or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of
the A.R.T.O. within a period of two